posted 05-15-2012 11:07 AM
Received an unsolicited email from "PFC Auctions" advertising the sale of an item signed relatively recently by Armstrong:

A US flag signed on the reverse by Neil Armstrong, Gene Cernan and Jim Lovell will feature at PFC Auctions May sale.

The three astronauts travelled to Afghanistan in August 2011, as part of a NATO morale boosting mission, to meet Afghan officers in training at Camp Eggers in Kabul, the headquarters of the NATO-led training mission.

The flag was signed at the New Kabul Compound on August 17 following a question and answer session, and photo opportunity with US Military personnel. Each astronaut has signed boldly on the reverse, showing respect for the US flag. The flag is accompanied by over 300 photographs documenting the visit.

Robert PearlmanEditor

Posts: 31643From: Houston, TXRegistered: Nov 1999

posted 05-15-2012 11:18 AM
If the consignor is a member of the U.S. military, would this sale be considered conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman?

(For what it is worth, there have been a number of anecdotes suggesting Armstrong has signed for active-duty soldiers in recent years and if true, most have had the good sense to recognize it as a token of gratitude for their service to the nation and not something appropriate to try to make a quick buck.)

p51Member

Posts: 1206From: Olympia, WA, USARegistered: Sep 2011

posted 05-15-2012 11:43 AM
I was an active duty and reserve US Army officer until 2006, and I can tell you plenty of the officers I served with would have tried to sell this once they realized what it was worth. We once got a visit by the commander in chief and many of us got challenge coins from him. Several turned up in the local pawn and surplus places by the end of the day!

quote:Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:If the consignor is a member of the U.S. military, would this sale be considered conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman?

No, conduct unbecoming is a tough charge to make stick and rarely goes to a court martial of any kind (and yes, there is more than one kind), and even then I don't see a UCMJ violation in this case. If Armstrong made it clear at the time he was only signing for people in uniform, even then he'd have to make it clear that he doesn't sign for anyone anymore and that nobody had permission to sell them, or that the chain of command made that really clear. In such a case (and assuming the chain of command cared at all), at the most it'd merit a letter of reprimand or counseling statement (both of which rarely ever follow an officer once they leave that specific command for their next assignment). I just can't see a Battalion of Brigade commander hauling an officer into their office to "stand tall before the man" for something like this, especially in a war zone where there are understandably far more pressing issues for a commander to deal with.

Hart SastrowardoyoMember

Posts: 2654From: Toms River, NJRegistered: Aug 2000

posted 05-15-2012 12:35 PM
Personally, I'm much more amused that the way the men signed (and the notation it was signed in Afghanistan), the flag is upside-down... which is a symbol of distress.

garyd2831Member

Posts: 526From: Syracuse, New York, USARegistered: Oct 2009

posted 05-15-2012 02:17 PM
This saddens me greatly. Being a military officer myself, I would love to have these American heroes sign an item for me and it would not be for sale.

I would not say that it is "Conduct unbecoming" but it is in bad taste as my personal opinion.

TykeanautMember

Posts: 1959From: Worcestershire, England, UK.Registered: Apr 2008

posted 05-15-2012 02:53 PM
Another example of why he is reluctant to sign anything perhaps?

p51Member

Posts: 1206From: Olympia, WA, USARegistered: Sep 2011

posted 05-15-2012 03:09 PM

quote:Originally posted by garyd2831:This saddens me greatly. Being a military officer myself, I would love to have these American heroes sign an item for me and it would not be for sale.I would not say that it is "Conduct unbecoming" but it is in bad taste as my personal opinion.

I agree with you on all your points. Being active duty has gained me some signatures in the past that others had to pay for (for example, several of the "Band of Brothers" airborne vets signed my copy of the book without paying when I pulled out my ID), but I too would never sell them when I used my service to gain something like that.

Second, I'm further amazed that he signed on a U.S. flag, given his noted aversion to doing so even on photos.

Having said that, the awkward alignment of the three signatures, and the fact that they are placed on the flag in a location that makes display difficult, makes this an unappealing piece to me.

If I were present and this were offered to me by Armstrong, Cernan, and Lovell, I would keep it and cherish it forever. But as a buyer/ collector, I am inclined to pass.

garyd2831Member

Posts: 526From: Syracuse, New York, USARegistered: Oct 2009

posted 05-15-2012 03:47 PM
I'm sure Neil still signs for the "very special" occasion. Being the circumstances and him showing his support to our combat forces and being a prior Naval Officer had everything to do with this signing (In my opinion). That doesn't mean that every military person in uniform will have an opportunity to obtain a legitimate Armstrong signature. Timing, place and situation has everything to do with this rarity. Rest assure, if Mr. Armstrong sees this sale, it will probably lock him up for good on signing anything again, to include us military personnel.

JasonBMember

Posts: 895From: Registered: Sep 2003

posted 05-15-2012 09:40 PM
Maybe I missed something here, but unless Neil laid out specific instructions that he'd only sign if the person who got it never sold it, and the person agreed to it to get him to sign it, there's absolutely nothing wrong with someone selling this.

And to imply that its conduct unbecoming or in bad taste to sell it simply because Armstrong has had a ridiculous autograph policy that has served to do nothing more than drive up prices to insane levels is just plain silly. Just because Neil Armstrong is involved doesn't change anything.

Someone's selling some autographs they got — welcome to 25 years ago!

generallouMember

Posts: 114From: T H, IndianaRegistered: Jun 2005

posted 05-15-2012 09:57 PM
As a retired enlisted member this really offends me that it would be signed in a combat area and sold for profit, it is war profiteering by whoever sells it and a disgrace to the uniform. And if it is a US member selling it overseas for profit it truly goes to the character of that member.

There's absolutely nothing legally wrong with someone selling this (unless, as I earnestly asked, if selling something obtained as a result of and while on active duty is a breach of the military's rules).

But to state unequivocally that there's "nothing wrong" with trying to profit from the generosity of another individual, is to ignore the social constructs that have been well established for decades. And while you may be comfortable with bucking the social norm, clearly not everyone is.

But if you believe to each their own — which is fine — then you are not in a position to criticize another person's choice for how and when he chooses to give of his time and self (i.e. Armstrong's "ridiculous autograph policy").

SpaceAholicMember

Posts: 3339From: Sierra Vista, ArizonaRegistered: Nov 1999

posted 05-16-2012 01:34 AM
Isnt it possible the recipient is a coalition soldier, contractor from another country (i.e. non US)... strikes me as odd this would appear in a UK auction house so quickly. If so any apparent breach in ethics may not be as relevant to the consignor.

JasonBMember

Posts: 895From: Registered: Sep 2003

posted 05-16-2012 07:30 AM
Robert I don't know what "social constructs" have been in place for decades that would not allow someone to get an autograph and then sell it. I don't even know what that means related to autographs. I do know that people selling autographs enable people who can't meet someone in person to get their autograph. If it wasn't for people getting and then selling autographs, I would have had about four astronaut autographs in my life. People like that provide a service. The astronauts' restrictive autograph policy's make that possible. If they don't like it (and I think most of them don't care), they could just sign through the mail for a fee like some of them do. Then the demand for buying and selling their signatures goes down to below what they charge.

Last time I checked Neil Armstrong is a grown adult with a reasonably intelligent brain. He's not so dimwitted that he was taken advantage of by some supposedly devious individual in some sort of confidence scheme as is implied here. He voluntarily signed an autograph for someone. Am I supposed to believe that he's so dumb that the thought of someone selling it never occurred to him before he signed it? A man whose entire autograph policy has centered around not wanting people to make money for 20 years signed an autograph. He knows what can happen. To imply that he's somehow going to be shocked and never sign again simply because he might see this for sale is frankly far more insulting towards Armstrong's intelligence than me simply calling his autograph policy ridiculous.

And yes I know he has the right to do what he wants with his time. I have the right to sit around all day in my underwear but like Armstrong's autograph policy, that doesn't mean it makes a lot of sense or that people cant say so. He also has the right to hand out autographs as he sees fit without people implying that he's too stupid to know what might happen with it, which is what people on here are saying.

Robert PearlmanEditor

Posts: 31643From: Houston, TXRegistered: Nov 1999

posted 05-16-2012 07:49 AM

quote:Originally posted by JasonB:I don't know what "social constructs" have been in place for decades that would not allow someone to get an autograph and then sell it.

There was a time, not too long ago, when this was common sense. When getting a gift (of any monetary value) and turning around and selling it immediately was considered poor manners, if not also poor taste. The recipients cared enough not to want to take advantage of the gifter's generosity.

That's not to say that people didn't act in the contrary, they did, but it wasn't the social norm.

As for your ability to obtain autographs, there would still be estate sales (after all, you can't take it with you when you die) and, as was once also common, collectors helping out collectors with no expectation of payment at all. A time when trading was much more common than it is now.

But if that's not self-evident, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. In the scheme of things, this sale is just another brick in the wall, one that won't be coming down anytime soon (or ever) so we might as well just move on...

Steve ZarelliMember

Posts: 508From: Upstate New York, USARegistered: Mar 2001

posted 05-16-2012 08:10 AM
This thread is based on the assumption the autograph is authentic.

I don't know if it is authentic or not. But, I would not base an opinion on a badly angled photograph and a "story," which does not qualify as credible provenance. They claim to have 300 photos. Is there one that depicts Armstrong signing this item?

There is a guy in Afghanistan risking his life. He probably has a wife and kid. He sold something he got for free. If anyone deserves to good fortune of what amounts to a an annual bonus, it's him. I don't see a problem.

There is a guy in Afghanistan risking his life. He probably has a wife and kid. He sold something he got for free. If anyone deserves to good fortune of what amounts to a an annual bonus, it's him. I don't see a problem.

There is a guy in Afghanistan risking his life. He probably has a wife and kid. He sold something he got for free. If anyone deserves to good fortune of what amounts to a an annual bonus, it's him. I don't see a problem.

These are just thoughts; I don't mean to start any arguments (I feel this is a needed disclaimer.)

GonzoMember

Posts: 523From: Lansing, MI, USARegistered: Mar 2012

posted 05-16-2012 01:39 PM
As a retired USAF NCO, I too am offended that this guy would immediately sell these autographs. But for me it's for a bit of a different reason or view of the situation.

First off, this was from one hero to another. I hold very high regards for both (at least up till now). If Neil and the others signed this flag out of respect for this guy, he has, in my opinion, slapped all three of the signers in the face. I agree that there has been, and for good reason, the custom of NOT selling gifts for profit and that is what I see this as, a gift.

Whether this sale is a UCMJ (Uniformed Code of Military Justice) violation is up for legal debate. In the very least, I also agree that is in very poor taste. This guy is not only selling the signatures, but also the flag they are on. The very flag he has sworn to protect.

As far as Neil's signing habits goes, it's entirely up to him. Part of his restrictive habits has given his signature the value it demands today. At the same time, his restrictive habits are there because he understands the value put on it. And maybe doing so is due to an attempt to prevent this very kind of thing from happening.

mjanovecMember

Posts: 3688From: Midwest, USARegistered: Jul 2005

posted 05-16-2012 01:45 PM

quote:Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:There was a time, not too long ago, when this was common sense. When getting a gift (of any monetary value) and turning around and selling it immediately was considered poor manners, if not also poor taste.

The signatures were collected 9 months ago. I'm not sure where the cutoff is for "selling it immediately" but a lot can happen in a soldier's life in 9 months. For all we know he/she had every intention of keeping the piece, but a number of possible things could have occured...a spouse losing a job, illness in the family, car accident, etc. As such, I would hesitate to pass judgment on the soldier's ethics without knowing the full story.

Besides, a large percentage of space-related signatures (and pieces of hardware) sold at auction houses (like RR, Heritage, Regency, etc.) were obtained as gifts and were later sold for profit. Where do we draw the line between "poor taste" and an acceptible practice? For many, it's an individual decision.

As for the signatures on the flag, they have every indication of being authentic. Even though we don't have many Armstrong signatures exemplars from the past 10 years, I find very little about this Armstrong signature that I would consider to be atypical.

capoetcMember

Posts: 1814From: Newnan GA (USA)Registered: Aug 2005

posted 05-16-2012 02:06 PM
It would seem more likely that, if the piece is authentic, it would not have been signed during or right after the presentation -- otherwise, Cernan, Lovell, and Armstrong would probably have to sign for everyone there, and I suspect we would have heard that by now.

More likely, if authentic, the piece was signed for a senior leader in private, or else it was signed with an expectation that it would be used a certain way (sold for charity, framed and displayed in the unit, etc).

Armstrong has, in recent years, refused to sign for pretty much everyone, including some high ranking politicians. While it is possible he made an exception for an average soldier, I think the authenticity of the autograph would have to be in question (barring some photographic evidence to the contrary).

liftoff1Member

Posts: 213From: cumberland, wisconsinRegistered: Aug 2001

posted 05-16-2012 03:12 PM
Judging by the way the signatures were added to the flag, I would guess that the flag was folded and the signers thought that they were looking at the right-hand vertical side of the field of stars on a flag that was "right-side-up". I doubt that they intentionally signed it upside down. They just didn't know that the flag was inverted and flipped over.

garyd2831Member

Posts: 526From: Syracuse, New York, USARegistered: Oct 2009

posted 05-16-2012 05:02 PM
You are correct in saying a lot can happen in 9 months and we don't know the reasons for the sale.

As combat veteran myself of OIF and a veteran of both the Air Force and Army, I have been in some very tough situations recently and a good friend of mine, the late Donald Brady, gave me a few valuable items that I will probably never sell. I told him that if for some reason these were to leave my hands, they would be given to someone who truly would enjoy them. I have already given away one item to another fellow Collectspace member and I stand by my word. At one time in our country's history, a person word and a handshake meant something.

You find a way to work through those hardships at all cost if possible to hold onto the things you worked so hard for.

Again, this is only my opinion and not a fact.

mjanovecMember

Posts: 3688From: Midwest, USARegistered: Jul 2005

posted 05-16-2012 06:34 PM

quote:Originally posted by capoetc:Armstrong has, in recent years, refused to sign for pretty much everyone, including some high ranking politicians. While it is possible he made an exception for an average soldier

In my opinion, it's more likely he signed for an "average" soldier than for some high ranking leader. As you said, he has turned down requests from some prominent politicians...so a position of prominence doesn't guarantee an autograph.

I am guessing that if Armstrong is willing to overlook his signing policy for someone, it would be for a soldier who is putting their life on the line on a regular basis in service of their country.

generallouMember

Posts: 114From: T H, IndianaRegistered: Jun 2005

posted 05-16-2012 06:35 PM
Well said Gary, I have a photo signed by Bill Clinton thanking me for my service that I would never sell. I was part of several Presidential security details in Chicago when I was stationed there, the best of which was the World Cup in I think it was 94 when he brought Chelsea. Things like this you just don't sell.

Dougin SoCANew Member

Posts: From: Registered:

posted 05-16-2012 08:31 PM
I wonder what sort of scenario would had provided the opportunity for apparently only one soldier to have a US flag signed. Surely there must have been numerous fellow soldiers just as worthy. The auction claims to have 300 photographers as provenance to its authenticity, but if 300 photographers and who knows how many service men were also in attendance, wouldn't multiple signed items have surfaced by now? I think maybe 300 photographers could have been present for their visit, but not for the actual signing of the item.

I can't imagine really any situation where the 3 of them would have had such a small audience that only one item was signed (they must have had a pretty large security detail at all times), unless it was some top brass. Even if that was so, there would still be a lot of people to be able to support the claim if it were genuine. I wonder why none of the astronauts didn't personalize it if it was indeed going to a special person (especially as this had been Neil's practice for many years).

Only time will tell if this was really just a unicorn.

chetMember

Posts: 1430From: Beverly Hills, Calif.Registered: Nov 2000

posted 05-16-2012 11:36 PM
I think the ethical debate here is a little off-target; the autographs in question don't appear to me to be authentic signatures.

I believe the listing only refers to 300 photographs, not photographers.

spacefloriMember

Posts: 1422From: GermanyRegistered: May 2000

posted 05-17-2012 01:55 AM
Chet brings up a good point - aside from the ethical debate - how about authenticity?

In another thread here on cS referring to crew signed shuttle photos it turned out that the background story was wrong. Keep in mind any "story" can be created, faked, invented, misunderstood like any bogus COA.

If the autographs are wrong, it's indeed a very sad story using a war and visit of three astronauts to create such a background story.

By the way, has anybody noticed the left guy in the photo is not Jim Lovell as stated in the description?

That said my very own opinion is that these autographs are not real, aside from some wrong traits why would Armstrong go back to a signing style not used for 20-30 years - if he would have signed, why not his printed letter version? Too many questions open...

moorougeMember

Posts: 1941From: U.K.Registered: Jul 2009

posted 05-17-2012 03:57 AM
The fascinating thing about these discussions is that they seem to be based mostly on supposition and very little on hard fact.

I'm surprised that nobody seems to have come up with the obvious answer. Given that many of this community claim to have more than a nodding acquaintance with at least two of the astronauts concerned, why don't they ask them? Were Cernan/Lovell in Afganistan at the time claimed with Armstrong? If they were, did the three of them sign a flag, in what circumstances and who for?

Mystery solved. Q.E.D.

Robert PearlmanEditor

Posts: 31643From: Houston, TXRegistered: Nov 1999

posted 05-17-2012 07:34 AM
The auction description has been amended with additional information and photographs. Among the changes:

A detailed letter of provenance, provided by one of the site security managers, explains how the autographs were obtained during the astronauts' departure from the military base.

capoetcMember

Posts: 1814From: Newnan GA (USA)Registered: Aug 2005

posted 05-17-2012 07:58 AM

quote:Originally posted by mjanovec:I am guessing that if Armstrong is willing to overlook his signing policy for someone, it would be for a soldier who is putting their life on the line on a regular basis in service of their country.

The reason I suggested it may have been a senior leader is that it is unlikely a soldier would have been in a position to be alone with Lovell, Cernan, and Armstrong. While they might be more predisposed to sign for a soldier, it would be much less likely for that opportunity to present itself than it would be for the three men to be alone in the Commander's office, for example.

Or, perhaps, in the humvee on the way to the aircraft...

For what it's worth, from what I can see of the autographs, Cernan's looks okay, it is hard to tell on Lovell's, and Armstrong's looks possibly okay although out of context with his recent signatures (it would have to be a pretty good forgery though).

quote:Originally posted by spaceflori:By the way, has anybody noticed the left guy in the photo is not Jim Lovell as stated in the description?

This is written on the auction description with regard to photo captions:

(Please note: the captions on the images listed below are taken from the page title and will not represent who/what is present in each image)

RossMember

Posts: 410From: AustraliaRegistered: Jul 2003

posted 05-17-2012 08:35 AM
I can think of one possibility to explain the signatures. What if the recipient was a badly wounded soldier about to be sent home. That would explain why he was singled out and might also explain the need to sell it.

mjanovecMember

Posts: 3688From: Midwest, USARegistered: Jul 2005

posted 05-17-2012 10:47 AM

quote:Originally posted by spaceflori:That said my very own opinion is that these autographs are not real, aside from some wrong traits why would Armstrong go back to a signing style not used for 20-30 years - if he would have signed, why not his printed letter version?

Armstrong stopped signing regularly 18 years ago, but that doesn't mean he hasn't made exceptions and used his classic signing style (the "Neil Atg" style) since then. Just last year we saw one example of Neil signing a tabletop (with photographic proof) using this signature style. At a minimum, I've seen other examples of the classic signature style from 1999 and 2002... and know of other, more recent examples that do exist.

Robert PearlmanEditor

Posts: 31643From: Houston, TXRegistered: Nov 1999

posted 05-17-2012 12:09 PM

quote:Originally posted by moorouge:...why don't they ask them? Were Cernan/Lovell in Afganistan at the time claimed with Armstrong? If they were, did the three of them sign a flag, in what circumstances and who for?